Talk:LGBTQ rights by country or territory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

LGBT rights by issue

There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies about the need for an article that discusses LGBT rights by issue. This article breaks it down by country, and the LGBT social movements breaks it down by timeline, but I think it would be beneficial to break it down by issues. We made up a good list on the WikiProject page. Here it is:

• Legality of same-sex sexual activity: sodomy laws, age of consent
• Legality of trans/gender-variant behaviour: anti-cross-dressing laws, laws about SRS
• Relationship recognition: adoption & parenting, hospitalization, immigration
• Gender transition laws: ability to change name, ability to change legal gender, gov't recognition of new legal gender
• Discrimination by the government: military service
• Non-discrimination laws: housing, employment, public accomodations
• Hate crimes laws

Also, someone suggested "bodily autonomy". The thought was to list all of these things on an article called LGBT rights, which currently redirects to here. Thoughts? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support changing LGBT rights to be its own article, organised by issue, instead of a redirect to this page. As a note, we'd need to update a lot of the redirects to this article to point to the new article. --Alynna (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About the breakdown - we should compare with the rights described in the Yogyakarta Principles. --Alynna (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this change as well. I would like to see MSM blood donation on that list as well, if possible. - Axel Löfving (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion, but I want to know where countries have laws restricting people in other services such as the police. I know many armies have homophobic policies, but are there any countries ( or states, including foring dependancies ) Where it's legal to be a homosexual, but not OK to join law enforment agencies and companies? Is the stance on excluding homosexual men from donating blood, aply to a man, simply for being a homosexual, even if he is still a virgin? Civilian knowledge (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the United States

For the United States, regarding the legality of homosexuality itself, it states "Legal since 1962, nationwide since 2003" ... indeed, homosexuality has been legal in the United States since 1962, but the part where it states "nationwide since 2003" is referring to Lawrence v. Texas, which was a Supreme Court case in which sodomy laws were struck down in the various states that still had them. The case was not regarding the legality of actual homosexuality and the legality of homosexuality (i.e. public displays of homosexual affection, simply being able to freely state "I'm homosexual" without facing charges, as is the case in places where homosexuality is illegal) has been legal in the United States since 1962. Lawrence v. Texas was only regarding states that still had sodomy laws in place which applied to all persons not just homosexuals, and it must be considered that not all homosexual males engage in acts of what is considered to be sodomy, and that homosexuality also applies to females, not just males. Therefore Lawrence v. Texas should not apply to the issue of actual legality of homosexuality itself in the United States and should be removed from that particular section. Agreed or perhaps I'm not properly understanding the case? Aurora30 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not properly understanding the case. The Texas sodomy law, in particular, was passed by the state legislature as the "Homosexual Conduct Act" and only applied to oral and anal intercourse with members of the same sex. Heterosexuals engaging in the same behavior would not have been prosecuted. As Justice O'Connor stated in her concurring opinion, the Texas law would have been thrown out on equal protection grounds regardless. But the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Kennedy, went even further and nullified all sodomy laws in the United States. This is because the court majority found that the laws - whether applied to everyone or just homosexuals - were an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Technically, it was a 6-3 decision to rule against Texas' "Homosexual Conduct Act" and 5-4 for getting rid of all sodomy laws in general. In either case, however, homosexuality was explicitly illegal in Texas before Lawrence. And thus, it was not "legal nationwide" until 2003 as the article states. 67.188.55.242 (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional maps

I believe that maps in a very good way makes information easily accessible. As of now, this article is illustrated only by a map detailing the status of same-sex unions and marriage as well as detailing the status of homosexuality as a crime.

This does not, in my opinion, give a good overview of the various subjects detailed on this page. This page would benefit greatly from maps detailing

• gender reassignment laws
• Protection from discrimination
• same-sex adoption

I'm not really sure how this should be organized. This map by ILGA details the same issues as the currently avalible as well as anti-discrimination, and does not seem cluttered, but every issue could not possibly be accounted for in one single map. I suggest we add anti-discrimination to the map in use, and create a new map regarding transgender issues. Adoption could have a map of its own, I suppose – I don't think we could detail that as well in the updated current one. Would three maps in quick sucession seem cluttered? Axel Löfving (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The 2009 Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill punishes by death repeat offenders (two or more times) of such crimes as uploading/downloading gay pornography and failing to report homosexual activity. The extreme nature of these provisions should be reflected in the information made available about the state of the law there. See ss.s(1)(f), s.3(2), and s.1 "serial offender", as well as s.16(b) and s.13(1)(a) of the Bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.156.123 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Adoption in India

There is no particular law which says LGBT people cannot adopt kids. So to say same sex adoption is banned is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timofeyevich (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The field refers to adoption by same-sex couples, not by individuals. Some countries don't allow adoption for single people, I don't know if India is one of them, if single people may adopt, is important that the country have an explicit legislation bannig discrimination based on sexual orientation. Considering that in 2009 India legalises homosexuality I think the adoption field in India should be filled with NO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.175.28 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Is Afghanistan in South Asia or Central Asia?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Geographically speaking, it is both.

Politically, culturally and ethnically speaking, as a "whole" it can be reasonably considered Central Asian, South Asian, both or neither.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Moi

Notice of proposal to rename "LGBT rights activists" category

A proposal to rename the category "LGBT rights activists" has been created. Thoughts on the matter can be discussed at its entry, here:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_29#LGBT_categoriesAdrigon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

South Korea

"Yes Transsexuals allowed to change legal gender but sometimes"

Why does it cut off and what is suppose to be there? --142.162.69.96 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess the edit was done by someone whose first language is not English, but it is unsourced and should go for now. I'll remove it. Rodhullandemu 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Due to conscription, but gays subject to discrimination"

That is completely not true but I'm at lost as to what to do granted that this page seems to be locked from editing. See here. for further informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.147.119 (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lesbian and Gay Kingdom of the Coral Sea Island

If there is a gay rights by nation you should mention the micronation called the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands.

Southern europe?

According to the wikipedia article on southern europe either from a geo-political , mathematical , as defined by the UN ..etc, many of the balkan countries should be included in the definition of southern europe. A personal definition of southern europe cannot be accepted in this article and should rely at lest in the UN definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.184.35 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.184.35 (talk)

Mosaic Law Vs. Men Lying With Men

The article has this statement:

"The first recorded Abrahamic laws against sexual intercourse between men are dated by scholars to circa 550 BC, during the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people; they are recorded in Leviticus (though conservative scholars date Leviticus to be much older), and prescribe the death penalty."

There is no documentation for this statement. The expression "dated by scholars" is an invalid statement in this context, since scholars differ on practically any and every statement one could make on the Bible. Educated persons cannot agree on who is a scholar. "Abrahamic" is a useless and unsubstantiated adjective. The objective phrase is "Law of Moses," i.e., the Torah or the Pentateuch. This statement should simply read (proposed change):

The ancient Law of Moses (the Torah) forbids men lying with men (intercourse) in Leviticus 18 and gives a story of attempted homosexual rape in Genesis in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities being soon destroyed after that. The death penalty was prescribed.(EnochBethany (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from PUNAISTA, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

On the section concerning Finland I would take into notice that there is a new proposition on a law legalising same-sex marriages. The proposition is supported by the major political parties, including the National Coalition Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Left Alliance, the Green League and the Swedish People's Party and the liberal wing of the Centre Party.

The law would become into effect in 2012 at it's earliest.

PUNAISTA (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And, furthermore, I'd wait until this bill is passed or gets shot down. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

UAE Status in image

I was told on the image discussion page to post corrections on a page that links to the image, so I will.

The map of LGBT rights is wrong for the UAE. It should be dark red, not orange. (It uses the death penalty). This got changed during some dispute over Switzerland (I think), during which time the UAE became gray, then orange. Could someone please change this who knows how to do so?

99.60.56.161 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This question is unclear. See [1] Ron 1987 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case (and most of the source you cited says that the death penalty is in place in the UAE), then why hasn't this article been updated to reflect that? That's my main problem. If there really is no death penalty in the UAE for homoseuxality, then both the article and the picture should reflect that. If the death penalty is applied, then that should be stated in both. 99.60.56.161 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ireland and California

Noticed in the image that the statuses of Ireland and Cali aren't quite up-to-date. Ireland has civil unions now (it's officially law, will be enacted in 2011) and California... well its status is ambiguous, but as of right now it is legal. Might want to change the image to reflect that. 66.31.36.245 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Argentina

Erm why hasn't Argentina been updated on this page? Same-sex marriage and adoption are now legal and are being preformed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

South America

The Same-sex marriage section of: Ecuador, Paraguay and Chile should be changed to 'but proposed.' Also, Peru's Civil Union section should be changed to but proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bahia, a northeastern state of Brazil, has passed legislation for gay marriage. Now it is allowed for gay couples to get married in the notaries instead of only civil unions. Marriage certificates that have been allowed by courts or issued in Bahia are accepted nation-wide. I request that the map is updated with Bahia being part of the dark blue group (gladly!). Source: (Facebook page link - only source I found in English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.150.44 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

USA - Matthew Shepard Act

Under the United States anti-discrimination laws section, it first says "No federal protections", then goes on to say that the Matthew Shepard act means it's "Included in the federal hate crimes law since 2009." I'm confused. If they mean no specific federal protections, can someone edit it to say this? --76.166.187.131 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination in Serbia

I wonder why does this article say that "some discrimination is banned in Serbia" since The Law agaist Discrimination forbids all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender (includes all LGBT population).

Discrimination in Serbia

I wonder why does this article say that "some discrimination is banned in Serbia" since The Law agaist Discrimination forbids all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender (includes all LGBT population). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefflo88 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Map--Recognition of same sex marriage, but same sex marriages not performed category underrepresented.

In Wyoming, for example, same-sex marriages from other places are recognized. There is a law that restricts marriage to male/female partners, but it does not disallow the state from recognizing same sex unions certified in other places, which they currently do; In fact, proposed legislation in 2009 in the WY state legislature that would have disallowed recognition of gay marriages from other states failed. So as of now, while marriage lisences are only issued to male/female couples, same sex unions from other places are reconggnzed (so WY should be light blue like most of Mexico on the map). I don't have a reference handy, but the reason I'm mentioning this is that I bet there are more places where this is the case. Wwelch000 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)wwelch000

pov-pushing by article title

This is supposed to be a serious article about homosexuality laws worldwide. "LGBT rights", by contrast, is just an idiosyncratic propaganda term used by proponents of certain homosexuality legislation. It is a blatant violation of our neutrality principle to use this term as if it had any official currency. Show me one official government document where "LGBT rights" is used as a term for such legislation. My impression is that this is just an attempt to abuse Wikipedia for the promotion of a neologism. Homosexual acts are legal and have been legal as a matter of course in all of the western world for half a century. This means just that, the legal status of homosexual acts. It has nothing to do with the term "LGBT", a term coined decades after the legislation of homosexual acts in the western world. --dab (𒁳) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely, dab. This article (and many others) pov-push simply from the title itself (not to mention the pov-pushing content). The title should definitely be changed. It is a direct violation of NPOV. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal to offer or are you content with nagging that any article that isn't anti-gay must be POV?--DVD-junkie | talk | 13:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to this mainly at Talk:LGBT#tautology. Just to add, I don't see why we can't use new terms to describe things that happened in the past. I mean, we write about Ancient Rome in modern English on Wikipedia, the fact that these words didn't exist back then is irrelevant... Mdwh (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A POV is absolutely being pushed. Homosexuality and transgenderism are not the same phenomenon. They're no more related than heterosexuality and transgenderism. The information is distinct enough and copious enough to justify separate articles, such as Homosexuality laws by country or territory (or even Gay and lesbian rights by country or territory) and Transgenderism rights by country or territory. Why not just throw women's, minorities', disabled persons' rights into this article? Nothing is gained by conflating homosexual (or gay) rights with transgender rights; and clarity and functionality are lost by doing so.

How come so few people can understand--especially here on Wikipedia--how mortifying and offensive and, indeed, bigoted it is for homosexual men's romantic and sexual preference to be put in the same category as transgenderism? And this is where I'm coming from. 75.132.142.26 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex Unions in India

Someone put "YES", in general terms same-sex unions are not illegal (in many countries where homosexuality is not illegal) and many same-sex couples officiate (simbolic) unions, the deal in that field is the recognition,the state's recognition of such unions, and it would have been an important news if India as a country would recognize it. In many journal it would be appearede "FIRST ASIATIC COUNTRY that legallizes same-sex marriage" I think it is a NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.101.111 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

POV problem: History of LGBT-related laws

First of all, I think LGBT rights is a smart idea. But, this Wikipedia not LGBTRightsAreTheBestThingToMankindSinceBreadAndWallets.org. Thus, I would to complain about the section's POV.

"Throughout history and across cultures, the regulation of sexuality reflects broader cultural norms." --- Wikipedia

That to me screams pro-LGBT. What do you think? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly. This article title (and many others under the "LGBT" umbrella, contain blatant bias). Something tells me, though, that gay-agenda-friendly Wikipedia won't be too quick to change it. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where the article pushes "LGBTRightsAreTheBestThingToMankindSinceBreadAndWallets"? And it's not like we're not covering the anti-pov - on the contrary, the whole point of this article is to extensively cover entire nations that are evidently against such rights. Mdwh (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the sentence at the end screams of POV: "even though all donated sperm is screened for sexually-transmitted diseases and even the most promiscuous heterosexual men are not barred from donating.[10][citation needed]". What? Why single out promiscuous people except to push a viewpoint? Needs more neutral language here.--GoodandTrue (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2011: Situation in Nauru (Pacific) and in Sao Tome and Principe (Africa)

In these news i read that on these both islandstates homosexualy will be legalised in 2011.

• Pinkpaper:São Tomé and Príncipe to legalise gay sex. 85.8.123.193 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Map colors

Should the map colors be changed? Currently, dark brown (Death penalty) looks very much like black (same-sex marriage allowed). Very distracting. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Same sex marriage countries are dark blue. It's clearer when you bring up the large map. Czolgolz (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear enough, especially on worse monitors (and possibly even worse for the colorblind). If someone can create a better scheme it would be appreciated. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

2011: Situation in Malawi (Africa) and and other African countries

Malawi Enacts Criminalisation of Sex Between Women Botswana's Landmark Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case Begins The Botswana Government's Opposition Strategy in Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case Date Set for Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case in Botswana Uganda:Drop the Death Penalty. MP David Bahati's New Stragegy MP David Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 Reportedly Dead Michael Sata Reiterates Position that He Will Not Legalise Homosexuality in Zambia Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Bill Criminalising Homosexuality Will Likely Die in Committee Time to Add Sexual Orientation to the Bill of Rights of Mozambique's Constitution São Tomé and Príncipe Set to Decriminalise Homosexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent sources, thank you. Czolgolz (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Botswana prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment This is the third African country, which prohibits homosexual acts but it also prohibits discrimination against them in employment. (Other countries are Mozambique and Mauritius) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Top right hand map of the world

Just some recommendation

Could you consider using different colours for the Death Penalty and Same Sex marriages allowed on the global map you have at the top of this page? At a glance the colours are very similiar especially when looking on the African continent. When looking at the African continent the Death Penalty colour is sooo similiar to that of the Same sex allowed colour which gives it the impression that South Africa imposes the Death Penalty for same sex unions - please could you consider changing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.131.69 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Another recommendation: is there any way we could see the large map and its legend at the same time? Belltower (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Belltower

Gender reassignment in Finland

I have just come across a very interesting article here: http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/08/22/young-finns-requesting-sex-changes/ - which indicates that it is legal to change gender within this country. Do you think this article is strong enough to be cited and this added to the Finland section? Being protected and all, I wanted to get your opinion first if this should go in.

Considering Changes to the Table section of the article (rights by territory)

I would like to propose some changes to the table section of the article:

• For a start, I strongly believe that the Anti-discrimination column belongs in the 3rd place as it is far more important than SS-relationships or Gay Marriage in a country or a territory (as it reveals the state of advancement of HR's laws on homosexuality). It would also allow you to determine quicker whether a country is safe or less safe to homosexuals.

• On another point (less important in my opinion, but it would make the table clearer and easier to read), I think that instead of having X/V marks for fields which are unclear or debatable, it would be better to replace them by an orange dot. In the explanations, the V could be then put next to what is allowed and X next to what isn't (I'm mostly thinking about the row of USA, where most boxes are made of X/V, and it's not directly clear what is V and what is X).

I hope these ideas will help improve this page, which is a great place to relate and compare territories on HR about homosexuality

--Checkxp (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Blood donations in Canada

For Canada, donation of blood is illegal if a man has had sex with another man since 1977. I think it should be included since this issue is mentioned for other continents. see [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.45.217 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.200.247.204, 16 September 2011

my home state New York now allows for marriage equality and i'm proud and want to see it listed among the US states on the site that allow for marriage equality 69.200.247.204 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request Fiji footnote, 6 October 2011

This is a very helpful page!

Just one small error, in section 2.52 Melanesia, please change the footnote for Fiji from [33] http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2010.pdf (which does not contain a reference to Fiji) to http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=140812 (which discusses the changed law in 2010)

Thank you

202.62.127.134 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Germany

Errorneously, the year in which same-sex sexual activity was legalized in Germany is stated as 1994. In the linked article to LGBT rights in Germany, it correctly says 1968 (East Germany), 1969 (West Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrmal (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP needs to convey this information better, but it's complicated; see Paragraph 175. West Germany eased §175 in 1969 and 1973 but did not entirely repeal it until 1994. So, roughly, what East Germany did in 1968 corresponds with what WG did in 1973, and what EG did in 1987/89 corresponds with what WG did in 1994. AV3000 (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Please correct the information on the main page!

B&H was a part of SFRY where homosexuality officially ceased to be illegal SINCE EARLY 70s (even before that, it was not prosecuted, but treated as psychiatric condition). UN declaration has nothing to do with that (anyway, the declaration was signed by SFRY, where all six succeeding countries accepted all docs signed by SFRY before 1991). that includes legislative in Slovenia, Croatia, B&H, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, even Kosovo! YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS LEGAL ONLY SINCE 1998!

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the law prohibiting all discrimination, including against homosexual and transgender persons is in full force and is practically enforced.

Same sex marriage is not possible although this can be disputed, as the law(s) don't exactly specify that the marriage has to be between persons of opposite sex (it addresses spouses)! The courts DO RECOGNIZE all non-married communions (if someone claims this, which is easily confirmed by the officially registered address on which they were living "for some time" in the same household, the judge has the right, and usually practices it, to allow any inheritance, equal to "legally recognised married spouses")

Adoption. A very loose law. Anyone can legally adopt anyone. If you are 18 YO, you can adopt an 80 YO granny. I HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION FOR ANY LEGAL PURPOSES!!!!Regarding adoption of children, if parents/custodians do not object, and if a person can offer a decent quality of life for a child (determined by social workers), YOU CAN ADOPT! Of course, a separate adoption procedure will have to be initiated by a partner! I still haven't heard of a "joint request" by two persons of the same sex (it is legally possible). The birth certificate NEVER specify the adopting parents as their "parents" the adoption details are mentioned in the "notes section".

Military. Until conscription was abandoned (some 5 years ago), being homosexual was one of the criteria for a person NOT to serve the obligatory period if he (conscription was for men only) does not feel comfortable (actually, a gay man had to insist to serve). Today, anyone qualified can apply to join professional army. Noone will be asked for sexual orientation (as it never has been a disqualifying criterion by law/regulation)

Therefore, we don't even have to change laws to allow same-sex marriage, adoption and all other GLBT issues. We have that. We only need to start practicing the law (re: marriage - for all the SYMBOLIC/IDEOLOGICAL reasons). all other legal issues are not a prob. the only prob is a wedding certificate form where you have a groom and a bride (why?)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.155.6 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

There's a key problem in the interpretation of Sodom & Gamorrah. The women wanted sex with "angels." We don't even know if the angels were male, female or hermaphrodite - or genderless. Also the Mishna postulates that it's a sin of property [meaning greed]. Please refer to Sodom & Gamorrah on wiki for these references.

The old testament talks about the primacy of dreams especially in prophecy & even once in the new testament with Mary & Joseph fleeing King Herod. So as a LGBT kabbalist, I have to throw the truth into the rink. In dreams, my sex is sometimes male sometimes, female sometimes, transgender in dreams. But my gender is always female in dreams [yes - despite having a penis], as I had dreams of husbands [not wives]. So if god speaks to us thru our dreams, we must be truthful in the interpretation of what is a man or woman can not be defined by their privates - and must be defined by how God tell us in our dreams.

173.248.213.31 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I added some wikilinks. If that is not enough, please copy 'n paste here the paragraph and change it how you want to have it. After that replace the |answered=yes to |answered=no and I will hopefully come back and change it. mabdul 12:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Russia - Request for Edit

Incorrect. In R. discrimination of gays is officially illegal.--94.228.193.11 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And your source would be? - Tournesol (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In certain location within Russia, discrimination of gays is arguably legal:

There are at least 3 city jurisdictions that have active "gag rule" laws. These laws prohibit positive or neutral discussion or dissemination of information on homosexuality or gender non-conformity. As of 23 March 2012, the most recent law passed is in St. Petersburg, Russia, described in "Amendments to Law of St. Petersburg on Administrative Offences in St. Petersburg of 12 May 2010 No.273-70, Article 1" (unofficial translation from Russian Language). Sources below.

Wording from St. Petersburg law as follows: To introduce into St. Petersburg Law of May 12, 2010 No. 273-70 “On administrative offences in St. Petersburg” the following changes: 1. To amend with articles 71 and 72 with the following content: “Article 71. Public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderness amongst minors Public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgenderness amongst minors incur imposition of fine on citizens in the amount from one to three thousand rubles; on officials – from three to five thousand rubles; on legal entities – from ten to fifty thousand rubles. Article 72. Public actions aimed at propaganda of pedophilia Public actions aimed at propaganda of pedophilia incur imposition of administrative fine on citizens in the amount from one to three thousand rubles; on officials – from three to five thousand rubles; on legal entities – from ten to fifty thousand rubles.”

In addition, unconfirmed reports of similar but stronger wording being proposed for Moscow, Russia.

References: ILGA - - http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/guide/country_by_country/russia/draft_in_english_of_the_proposed_propaganda_law_in_st_petersburg - http://ilga-europe.org/home/news/latest_news/st_peterburg_law_adopted St Petersburg Times Article - http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=35252 New York Times Article - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/world/asia/anti-gay-law-stirs-fears-in-russia.html

Posnie (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Change of Title or Dramatic Rewrite Needed

Why name an article LGBT when it only refers to homosexuality and not the (entirely separate and scientifically unrelated) issue of transexuality/transgenderism? It seems the common phrase 'LGBT' has been used without any real thought as to what it actually stands for. In order to make the article reflect the title, it would need a dramatic overhaul with tons of new sources and information. However what I would suggest is that transgender issues are kept into a separate article to sexuality issues to avoid the false assumption that they are somehow related. IainUK talk 01:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There's the "Laws concerning gender identity/expression" section. I think it needs to stay, though have a greater level of depth. There's a lot of issues that all LGBTIQ people share, though more than a few gay people refuse to admit it. Kate Dee (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point - but it is also transgender people who can feel offended by having their condition/status likened to sexuality. IainUK talk 19:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion also agrees with this post. While I was at university (in 2007 I think) they decided to take the T out of the LGBT society to rename it LGB society as it didn't make sense to keep it in and they are very different issues. Although they are connected by "sex", most of the problems faced by LGB people are very different to those experienced by transgender-ed people. I think it's good to keep the content as it is (for now at least) but removing T from the title sounds like a good idea as well.

This will also help the development of transgender articles and will avoid too much cluttering of information on this article.

Please also consider my last addition to this discussion (title 40) about adding a synopsis view, and let me know your thoughts. This is also in a help to "decluster" the info on this article. Thanks — Checkxp (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

New resource

This may be of use for the trans-related portions of this article: http://www.transrespect-transphobia.org/en_US/mapping.htm --Alynna (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Colours of Decriminalised Countries

Is it possible to change the colour of countries where homosexual acts are just legal from grey to a lighter form of blue? Lighter than civil unions countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.177.6 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say to chage the colour to a light green rather than blue, not to confuse them with places where marriage/partnerships are allowed. I think it's also important for it to be a light green so that it doesn't "shade out" the rest of the light colours. I hope this will improve the vis. of the map. — Checkxp (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the colour on the template to a lightish green but I'm not sure how to edit this on the map itself. I'll change back to grey until someone can help with this. Does it have to be the map creator?

You just changed the legend, not the map in the template, so I reverted it. I don't see a problem with current colours. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding Synopsis view

I would like to propose to add a synopsis view of this page, which captures rapidly most of the important information and place it as main heading 2, which would then make the current section 2 as section 3.

My idea would be for example as follows:

In Europe:

• v "Same-sex sexual activity": All countries in Europe except: Turkish Republic Northern Cyprus
• v "Anti-gay discrimination laws": All EU member states except: Vatican city

etc. etc.

I would be happy to put it in place and of course I would take more time and effort for it to look good in a nice table, with country flags etc.

I think this would give viewers a more clear and rapid view of the current world situation and would help LGBT travelers to have an overview about a specific region. Please let me know who thinks this is a good idea (or not) and I will try to implement it. If No reaction within 1 to 2 months, I will try to implement it and we'll see how people like it.

I hope this will help this article get greater visibility. Thanks a lot.

--Checkxp (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a really good idea, considering most regions have fairly similar attitudes toward LGBT issues, e.g. most of the Islamic world making it illegal etc. Would be a quick glace for people to look at.

I will start as soon as I have time (probably by the end of the month) but I'll probably need some help to make it look good (with nice colours in tables etc.). I hope I'll be able to do most of it myself, but a little help will always be welcome. Thanks for the support. —Checkxp (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Colour of Mexico City's Dot Problem

I noticed the Brazilian Province of Alagoas has been updated to dark blue on the map, and thank you to whoever did that. However, I have noticed that while Mexico City's dot is blue on the regular map, if one clicks it and is shown the blown-up version, it reverts back to light blue (recoginsed only). Wondering if someone could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeuneetlibre (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Colour of Jersey

Is it time yet to change the colour of the tiny British Isle of Jersey, or have the laws not officially taken hold there yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeuneetlibre (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Change in Argentina's Information

Argentine Constitution says in Article 16:

"Art. 16.- La Nación Argentina no admite prerrogativas de sangre, ni de nacimiento: no hay en ella fueros personales ni títulos de nobleza. Todos sus habitantes son iguales ante la ley, y admisibles en los empleos sin otra condición que la idoneidad. La igualdad es la base del impuesto y de las cargas públicas."

"Section 16.- The Argentine Nation admits neither blood nor birth prerogatives: there are neither personal privileges nor titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal before the law, and admissible to employment without any other requirement than their ability. Equality is the basis of taxation and public burdens."

So, in my opinion, it should be noted in the section "Anti-discrimination Laws (sexual orientation)" of the chart, that even though, a special law is being voted in the Senate, the Constitution already states that sexual discrimination is illegal, as is has been recorded in Brazil's section, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.179.1 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What they mean by anti-discrimination laws is that there are specific laws which ban discriminations and attacks to people on basis of sexual orientation or other differences. The fact to have a constitutional article that forbids inequality doesn't necessarly combats discrimination offences. I think it should be noted in Brasil as V/X because there are no specific laws for it, but indeed the constitutions sets every man and woman equal before the law.

I hope this clarifies your point.

--Checkxp (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to forced Sterilisation In Sverige (Sweden)

Recently, Feburary 18th 2012, a petition signed by over 77,000 particicants and hosted by All Out (LGBT Rights Organisation) resulted in members of the current coalition government in Sverige/Sweden to go foward in revising the law to force sterilisations onto citizens wishing to legally change their gender.

As of yet, no formal admendment or revision has been made, but this is apparently soon coming.

More information on the matter here; All Out: Stop Forced Sterilization — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRRyan (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC) --WRRyan (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion only married couples can adopt child in the Czech Republic, therefore claiming "Single gay persons may adopt" is doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.92.22 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Isle of Man needs to be updated

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Isle_of_Man most of the rights listed in this table were granted in 1992-2011. On this page they are all still listed with red X'es.

I would update it but the page is locked...

94.137.100.153 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pitcairn Island

This article claims that Pitcairn only bans SOME discrimination, but the new constitution clearly bans ALL discrimination "on the basis of Sexual Orientation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.178.211 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing Territories

This list is missing entries for the territories of Curaçao and St. Maarten. Also, it would be better to make separate entries for the Cocos Islands, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island, as they are in fact territories separate from Australia proper, and Norfolk Island, at least, has LGBT policies that differ from Australia's. Furthermore, if you're going to make a separate entry for territories like Hawaii and the Canary Islands, which are clearly an integral part of their mother country, surely autonomous regions like the Åland Islands, the Azores and Madeira should get a separate mention as well (the Azores and Madeira being part of a different continent, even). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.230.65 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Africa template

Please comment on the unilateral reversion of needed clarifications and changes to this template. The template would be enhanced to cover the adoption of children by LGBT persons as individuals (already covers adoption by couples), which is strangely and unjustifiably omitted. The reversion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LGBT_rights_table_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=508019829 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.93.227 (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if that information is to be added it should be added to all continents, not just Africa, and it should be discussed here first. Secondly, when it comes to adoption by LGBT individuals there are two possibilities: either a country specifically bans LGBT individuals, in which case a note to that effect could be included in the adoption column. Otherwise, just because a country hasn't actually banned adoption by LGBT individuals doesn't mean that they've actually recognised any rights, and it doesn't warrant a tick mark. - htonl (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that every article has to be organized the same. I'm surprised you don't know that already. Clearly, the table is about whether countries statutorily or constitutionally prohibit adoptions by LGBT persons. These articles universally discuss and cite those laws. There's no support for your unilateral, multiple reversions. And the template is clearly better now. 70.253.87.54 (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, the article isn't better this way! As adoption is a rather complex legal issue and if there is NO law governing this matter, it can be proven that, in most cases, it will end up in a negative ruling from the court(s). Therefore, there should be an "X-mark" with the mention: "although there are no specific laws governing same-sex adoption".

The article isn't just about the negative aspect, but more about the positive aspect: an v-tick should ONLY be used when something is recognised by the law (the same goes for discrimination for example, only a green tick should be used when there are laws governing this topic). --Checkxp (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think there should be something in between, I suggest we change the red "X-marks" into orange "X-marks" when there are no laws governing a certain topic. This was already a suggestion I made in an earlier post. --Checkxp (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

LGBT in the Philippines

In the Philippines, please add Cebu City that passed an ordinance to protect LGBT rights. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/291268/promoting-tolerance-and-respect Vernonereyes (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT in the Philippines

In the Philippines, please add Cebu City that passed an ordinance to protect LGBT rights. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/291268/promoting-tolerance-and-respect Vernonereyes (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 November 2012

The information about Macau is now accurate> single gay persons can adopt and there is anti-discrimination protection in the fields of labour (Article 6/2 of Law 7/2008), personal data (article 7/1,2 of Law 8/2005) and ombudsman (article 31-A of Law 10/2000, after amended by Law 4/2012).

Offshore111 (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Vacation^nine 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference #38 is a broken link. The document can now be found at http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/sexualminorities/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2010.pdf

Done Vacation^nine 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(Ancient) China

I first tried to clean up the sentence structure, then realized that it actually contradicts itself as written (as well as being vague).

The first line needs a reference (and a date). The first reference leads to a dead link; the second to an article in Chinese (which I can't read).

Given its placement, I assume "laws were passed" in "ancient" China, but no date/reference is given. The two cited lines say that "homosexuality was decriminalized", and then suggest that--while "hooliganism" was used as a catch-all--prior to 1997 there were "no specifically anti-homosexuality laws".

(I'd also suggest the reference to Victorian mores and Abrahamic religions is relevant, but not made very clear.)

Basically, it needs work, but I don't know enough to fix it. :(

[My first major edit/talk page, please forgive and correct me if I made a mistake.] Lamerc (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden no longer requires people to be sterilised and unmarried before having a sex change. So that should be removed from the list. http://www.advocate.com/news/world-news/2013/01/15/sweden-mandatory-sterilization-transgender-people-officially-ends Nothingbutmeat (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gay Marriage Has Passed In The UK's House Of Commons

On February the 5th 2013, Gay Marriage was passed in the UK House of Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J88nyr (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It has passed second reading. It still has to go through committee and report stages, pass third reading, and go through the House of Lords. There is a long way yet before it becomes legal. - htonl (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Renaming

I think the article should not be called "LGBT rights" but rather "Legislation Lgtb (Or homosexual) in the world" as it appears in the wiki in Spanish. The reason is that, like it or not, there are many human beings in the world (possibly the majority) who do not consider as "rights" the legal recognition of homosexuality, but rather as anti-rights of the rest of the people.

I think it would be better to make the article more accommodable to the general opinion of the inhabitants of the planet, as wikipedia is universal and we have no right to change the ideas of anyone without their consent.

--Annalium Hispaniarum (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-rights"???--В и к и T 19:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some religions and cultures think that homosexuality is not acceptable...and wikipedia is for all the world, including that peoples.

--Annalium Hispaniarum (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST for the tittle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalium Hispaniarum (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a mistake to think that "rights", in English, implies a particular point of view about whether people are morally entitled to that right. It is a simple word decribing legal abilities: do same-sex couples have the right to marry? to adopt? etc. etc. The POV term that implies a moral entitlement is "human right": which is why there is the campaign slogan "LGBT rights are human rights".

Anyway, the term "LGBT rights" is not just used in this article, but all over Wikipedia (for example the "LGBT rights in X" articles which exist for each country). And this use has been established for a long time. If you think this should be changed, you will need to develop a firm consensus with many other editors. (I would suggest WT:LGBT as the appropriate location.) - htonl (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Mister, I understand. --Annalium Hispaniarum (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Decriminalization in Malawi

Didn't Malawi took down its homosexual criminalizing laws? Amnesty: Malawi suspends anti-gay laws Should the map be edited? Titanicophile (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No. See [3], [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Really sad. Thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2013

The information on Israel is incorrect: Israel has labor anti discrimination protection laws since 1992 [6]

Capellb (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Source please. Arctic Kangaroo 08:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the anti discrimination of LGBT legislation in Israel is in the form of precedents (as the Israeli legal system is based to some extent on common law).

Here are some references (All in Hebrew):

1 - Prohibition of discrimination in products, services, entry to businesses (restaurants, clubs, etc), including on the basis of sexual orientation. Webpage from the Economy Ministry website (previously named Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry).

2 - 1994 Supreme court ruling in the case of El Al vs. Yonatan Danilovich. This ruling set a precedent according to which an employer may not discriminate in benefits between employee's spouses of different sex and same sex.

3 - 2004 Knesset protocol, passing a correction in the law of rights of the patient, prohibiting discrimination in medical treatment due to sexual orientation.

Yunis (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I ran the first two links you cited through Google Translate and I'm satisfied. I've made the change to the article and used those two links as references. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 03:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Claim about "no official heterosexist discrimination"

Just before the tables we have the uncited claim, "In modern times ten countries have no official discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including the rights of marriage and adoption. They are..." It looks like it's based on the assumption that countries with marriage equality - excepting Portugal because of the adoption issue - have no official discrimination. We don't actually know that there isn't residual discrimination in these countries. Unless we can find a citation, this claim needs to go. - htonl (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

Portugal has approved today limited adoption rights for gay marriages: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/17/portugal-expands-adoption-rights-for-same-sex-married-couples-refuses/ 158.162.21.117 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! It seems this is already reflected in the article, as referenced by source# 166. Setting this to  Not done but  Done by someone else. Thanks! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mexico/Quintana Roo recognition

Was just wondering if same-sex marriages performed in Quintana Roo (Mexican state) were recognised nationwide as those performed in Mexico City are? Thanks Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

USA federal marriage and civil unions recognition: Post DOMA

Shouldn't the USA be all teal, because if marriage is recognized federally? Gay couples who married to immigrants from other countries are no longer being deported.

If someone is married in say Maryland and moves to Tennessee than that married couple would received all of the federal benefits of marriage under the law, regardless of state law.

http://wreg.com/2013/06/26/legal-expert-weighs-in-on-same-sex-marriage-in-tennessee/

So US law, regardless of what state law says, recognized same-sex marriage even in places where it's not performed in the jurisdictions in the USA.

I know it's very complicated but from a legal standpoint marriage is recognized every in the USA, regardless of state law. Gay conservative (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

States are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and it's not at all clear that people in your situation (married in MD and moved to TN) will get federal benefits. In any case, many of the most important benefits of marriage are dependant on state law, not federal. - htonl (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I know. US Supreme Court didn't strike down Section 2 of DOMA. The state of Tennessee currently constitutionally bans gay marriage. But from a legal standpoint, if I get married in Maryland and move to the state of Tennessee I would have to get all of the legal federal benefits from the state of Tennessee that is prescribed to my marriage, while it's not granting me the state benefits. So there is some recognition every in the USA, but it's very complicated. For example under federal law the death penalty is legal, but many US states still ban in the death penalty and on the wiki map of the death penalty by country, it shows the death penalty legal nationwide. Also if you are gay married in a country that allows gay marriage and move to the USA you would be allowed to under the current immigration system now. Maybe we could have it stripped with teal and grey across the USA and have a disclaimer saying that the federal government recognizes gay marriage, but not state laws in the states.Gay conservative (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in this edit et seq. duplicated at least in part material from [7]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Russia - Changing laws against LGBT

New United Russia's laws banning what they call "homosexual propaganda" or whatever are sort of homophobic (or "very heterosexist and homonegative on the very least", if you are bothered by the word as my conservative friends), even when dealt in a perfectly NPOV, aren't they? They outrightly ban freedom of expression and association of queer people with a wide, blurred-defined purpose, so that it may be not allowed (not taking former de facto absence of safety in consideration entirely) anymore to request its own civil rights, to fight unjust discrimination, to be an out-of-the-closet public figure, perhaps even to be openly non-straight. It is a different kind of state-sponsored homophobia, and I am not the only one to see that way, Portuguese news media online sources said that Russia "legalized homophobia". What I mean is that while this fame is not new (Brazil trains its law enforcement personnel to not bother same-sex couples doing what everyone else is allowed do, there cops just watched white supremacist thugs trounce attempters of the realization of politically-motivated prides – hell, it is not our winter/spring Carnaval party/orgy, and even if it was this it isn't justifiable), I find that their notable aggressiveness now makes very clear that it is reasonable according to Wikipedia policies to make mentions about such laws here. Lguipontes (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

..Agreed- this article may need to reflect that Russia has now legalised brutality against members of the LGBT community. Is this then classified as indirectly criminalising homosexuality and should it be reflected in this article? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3804018.ece Mario 93.133.99.64 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Russian government haven't legalised brutality against the LGBT community.Try actually reading the propaganda law and you will see that there is actually no mention of words like gay, homosexual etc.

Clarification needed on decriminalization map

Please clarify two items on the decriminalization map:

• Add meaning of gray to the key
• Is Missouri being two colors an error? Either it is an error to be fixed, or it is correct and this difference in rights need to be noted in LGBT_rights_in_Missouri.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Legality of lesbianism in the UK

I have a definite memory that lesbianism was not a criminal offence in Britain, well before the 1967 reform. I think Queen Victoria objected to it being mentioned in some Victorian law that tidied up the law on the matter. It was widely discriminated against, but unofficially.

Does anyone know more definitely? The current entry fails to mention it. --GwydionM (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. Lesbianism has never been a criminal offence per se in the UK. The article LGBT rights in the United Kingdom notes that "lesbians were never acknowledged or targeted by legislation." But the story about Queen Victoria is an urban legend. - htonl (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, you need to change something

So, if you live in the US and saw some change in legislation, gay marriage is mandatory and that on June 26, 2013, there was legislation passed for benefits for gay marriage. So, just to let you know, this means that every state is REQUIRED to succumb to the federal government's demands and that they are just being stubborn. Thank you for your consideration :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfaraway269269 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

clarity in transgender terminology under "Ancient Persia" heading

Under the subject heading "Ancient Persia"... "The two most commonly documented forms [of homosexuality] were commercial sex with transgender young males or males enacting transgender roles exemplified by the köçeks and the bacchás [...]"

Confusing: "transgender male" sounds like "transgender man", which would be a person born female-bodied who lives as a man ([8]). Also, the article for bacchas makes clear they are child sexual slaves and child prostitutes; it's distasteful to appear to equate "transgender" with "prostitute" (especially as US pop culture does this too much, and police profiling of and mistreatment of trans women is a problem in the US), and describe sexual slavery as "exemplifying" a "transgender role".

How about rewriting the sentence like this: "The two most commonly documented forms [of homosexuality] were commercial sex with _crossdressing_ young males or males enacting _sexually submissive_ roles exemplified by the köçeks and the bacchás [...]" 96.241.49.238 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing gender in Finland

The article claims that "Legal sex change is possible without stelirization". This isn't true, the linked resource only talked about that a new law was worked on, but that didn't go anywhere. This is the current law http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2002/en20020563.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.208.53 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The law is still under consideration, and the false information should be edited as soon as possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.112.51 (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Still uncorrected. Could anybody with editing rights fix this? RNAWES12 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And still the same. Wouldn't take long to correct that it's still under consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.112.51 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the entry for Finland. For the record, anyone can edit Template:LGBT rights table Europe. - htonl (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is this situation n Finland marked with a red X, while similar situation in France, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro is marked with a green V? Also, does the requirement of surgical or medical treatment before recognition in the case of some countries (South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, Czech Republic and Romania) refer to sterilization? I don't know, whether a country requiring such treatment should be marked with a red X or with a green V, but I'm hoping some consistency. --213.243.165.194 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for other countries, but the surgical or medical treatment requirement in South Africa can be fulfilled by hormone therapy alone or by surgery. - htonl (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, whether the surgical or medical treatment means sterilization or not, at least it is expressly stated that the recognition of sex change in France, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro requires sterilization. Either these countries should be marked with the red X, like Finland, or Finland should be marked with a green V, like these other countries. --213.243.165.194 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding criterion: Coverage of medically necessary transition-related procedures

This is one that is very important to a subgroup of the T that suffers severe gender dysphoria regarding their body, yet none of the LGBT rights articles seem to discuss it. Perhaps we can work to implement it? --Beneficii (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013

LGBT-related laws by country or territory

Under South Asia - India - Same-sex sexual activity is listed as Legal since 2009. change to: Illegal

Reference: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/gay-sex-illegal-says-supreme-court-activists-to-seek-review-457216?pfrom=home-lateststories

Thespeedofthought (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Already done with this edit. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates

Australia Capital Territory doesn't perform same-sex marriage anymore. (That needs to be removed)

(Legal in Eight Native American Tribal Jurisdicitons and in Eight Counties of New Mexico; recognized in Oregon and New Mexico) (This needs to be added) Prcc27 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

Hello, Montserrat, a small African country in the Caribbean has outlawed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in its Constitution up to five years ago. Please would someone update the LGBT Laws for Montserrat. 122.58.208.58 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done for now: please provide a reliable source to back up your claim.. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move per WP:NPOV

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

---

LGBT rights by country or territory → Legal status of homosexuality by country or territory – Per WP:NPOV Calling them "LGBT Rights" is politically loaded and takes a side in the debate over homosexuality. This is a more neutral term, and conforms to WP:NPOV Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. If you feel that any of the other WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page should be alerted to it, feel free to alert in any of those cases of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The page as it currently stands makes numerous references to the rights of trans people. Trans people can be of any sexual orientation, including straight. Changing the title to include only the legal status of homosexuality would therefore be inappropriate. Funcrunch (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. "LGBT rights" has become the standard term for referring to this topic in the English language, and it doesn't imply a particular point of view. Besides excluding trans issues as noted above, the proposed new title would limit the focus of the article to the first column (legality of homosexuality) and exclude the other issues discussed. - htonl (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose In addition to the trans* exclusion, "rights" and "legal status" are not the same thing. Since its creation, this article has focused on rights. It should retain that focus. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Legal status is not the same as rights. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Everywhere that I read/see/hear about LGTB is about rights and not about legal status. And of course completely looking past trans NathanWubs (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Guardian article + infographics

This is an interesting and useful new article with various interactive infographics and worldwide data which can be used to edit and/or update the article: [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam adoption laws

I think Vietnam should be status as "LGBT individuals explicitly allowed"

According to Vietnam's adoption laws (part 8/3), single person (as Same-sex couple are not recognized as a married couple) is allowed to adopt child. The law do not have any sentences to deny LGBT person to adopt child. In fact, I know at least 2 transgender singers have adopted child (Cindy Thai Tai and Lam Chi Khanh)

Vietnam's adoption law: http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&_page=1&mode=detail&document_id=96052 (u can translate by GG)

--138.25.202.226 (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Automated Archive Discussion

I think this page needs an automatic archiver, as it is often extremely long, somewhat disorganized with outdated information. It says here to make sure to establish consensus before setting up a bot on a talk page. What do my fellow wikipedians think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.191.20 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have two problems with your request. One is that you are posting under an IP account that has had numerous incidences of vandalism; plus you don't seem to know how to sign your posts. Second, I find that automated archive bots tends to archive items much too quickly. I think it's probably better to request that someone manually archive the oldest and most outdated threads on this page. Softlavender (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania

"There is a law which can be, and actually was, interpreted as a ban on public speech about LGBT" is not quite right. It is the Law on the Protection of Minors [10] that is strangely interpretated. Only "Bans all anti-gay discrimination" should be left there - the law is not even close to that ban in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustHey (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Uruguay and blood donations

The map is wrong. Gays in Uruguay cannot donate blood. Update map accordingly.

--190.135.168.200 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Uganda

Uganda nullified its' strict law. --89.178.119.188 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

An harsh law about homosexuality was nullified, but the Penal Code still makes homosexuality punishable with life prison sentence. Titanicophile (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Greece

Hello. Could somebody correct the status of Greece in the global map concerning the right to donate blood for MSMs? At the moment, it is gray, meaning it has no data, but in actuality, it should be in the dark red category of Permanent deferral. Also, if someone could correct something in the table that describes LGBT rights in detail in every country; in Greece, it says that civil unions are pending, which is false because the PM recently said that he has absolutely no intention to extend civil unions to homosexuals, so basically, not only aren't they pending but they've been rejected a looong time ago. If someone could erase the "pending" and just leave the X sign that'd be great.

Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.93.38 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or altered in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyztan

http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/gay-propaganda-ban-moves-one-step-closer-to-law-in-kyrgyzsta Reprarina (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon!!!

It only says NO in the article, although there are many points on that subject, like judges ruling against the use of article 534 and the Lebanese Psychiatric Association stating that non-heterosexual orientations are completely natural.. See the main article about LGBT rights in Lebanon.. This article should say YES/NO about the legal status of same sex sexual activity with a bit of explanation!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.9.89.206 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased beyond belief

Honestly, this tries to make it seem like Same-Gender Marriage is a good thing and what should happen everywhere. Even though I disagree with that, it needs to be represented as one viewpoint here. Per WP:NPOV, this page needs to be as critical of homosexuality as it is complimentary. Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, this page is not biased. This page is just listing the rights of homosexual people in different countries. Just because a page is not blatantly biased towards your viewpoints does NOT mean it is biased against you. Just because this isn't conservapedia, does not make this rationalwiki. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro-LGBT Bias

This article seems to suggest that these people deserve rights for their immorality.

A paragraph about "Criticisms of LGBT rights" would help.

-- Add one and see how far you get :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.180.101 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before, This page is not biased, it's just not blatantly homophobic. If you want all pages to agree with you, go to conservapedia. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo's constitution does not define marriage between a man and a woman, and in September this year, a spokesperson from the Government of Kosovo stated in the United States that Kosovo indeed allows same-sex marriage, but it's yet to be practiced due to the country's other issues.

• You can see his statement here, minute 39:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xXDwh0aIc
  
• And the Human Rights Watch article here: http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/same-sex-marriage-legal-in-kosovo

So please, since the same-sex marriage issue is still unclear in Kosovo, please don't put the "X", because the previous reference is from the 2004 constitution, but Kosovo adapted it's new one after 2008. Thank you. --PjeterPeter (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Consistency of table headings across the continents

The headers used for the by-country tables should really be consistent across the whole article. At present there are the following variations:

• "Same-sex sexual activity" versus "Homosexual acts legal?"
• "Recognition of same-sex relationships" versus "Recognition of same-sex unions" versus "Recognition of relationships"
• "Same-sex marriage"
• "Adoption by same-sex couples" versus "Same-sex adoption"
• "Allows gays to serve openly in military?"
• "Anti-discrimination (sexual orientation)" versus "Anti-discrimination Laws (sexual orientation)"
• "Laws concerning gender identity/expression" versus "Anti-discrimination Laws concerning gender identity/expression"

We should really decide on a single consistent set of headers. We should perhaps also consider whether there should be a column for adoption of children by single LGBT individuals; my inclination is to say no, but there was an editor (see up the page) who thinks there should be. If there is to be such a column, it needs to be added to all the continent templates. - htonl (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one else has commented, I'll say what I think the column headers should be:

1. Same-sex sexual activity
2. Recognition of same-sex relationships
3. Same-sex marriage
4. Adoption by same-sex couples
5. Military service while openly gay or bisexual
6. Anti-discrimination laws (sexual orientation)
7. Laws concerning gender identity

Thoughts? - htonl (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Is a separate column for same-sex marriage really necessary? I think that should be one column for all types of recognition. The rest is fine for me. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a possibility to consider, though I feel that marriage is distinctly different from all the other forms of relationship recognition, since it implies full equality before the law. I was also thinking that the last column should really be split into two: one for the ability to change legal gender, and another for laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity. - htonl (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and put my two cents in here as well. I think that your proposal, htonl, is the one that we should make standard. I might add that we could add legal to Recognition of same-sex relationships. I attempted to changed the Europe template to this style, though my work was reverted by another user. They believe that the dates on countries with legal same-sex marriage would have to be edited to show that there was previous recognition, which I agree with. Denmark for example first recognized same-sex couples in 1989 with registered partnerships, however that scheme was repealed with the gender neutral marriage bill in 2012. I think that we should make simply highlight that the Nordic countries (and others) recognized them since their first marriage alternative was introduced, followed by the date for when marriage was legalized in the respective columns. I have to admit though, the current column headers are annoying the hell out of me, especially when it comes to what we as a group of editors are trying to present. The Nordic countries all have red X marks in the Civil Union column and while that is accurate, it gives the illusion that there is some kind of legal right still being denied. Hopefully we can resolve that. Chase1493 (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo de jure same sex marriage

• The Constitution of Kosovo does not define marriage between a man and a woman, and in fact says that anyone can enter into marriage. In 2014, the President of the Constitutional Court said that Kosovo de jure indeed allows same sex marriages.

• The "Family Law of Kosovo" or Law nr. 2004/32 was published on January 1 2004 by the UNMIK, so it's invalid with the adaption of the new constitution in 2008, and therefore can't be a justification that same-sex marriage isn't de jure legal in Kosovo.

--PjeterPeter (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Adoption of the constitution does not mean that the family law is invalid. The law was approved in 2006, not 2004, and it was done by the Kosovo's parliament. Citation from the Kosovo Assembly site: "Law is approved by Assembly of Kosovo, date 20 January 2006 and promulgated by UNMIK Regulation no. 2006/7 of date 16 February 2006". It is on the list of laws on the Ministry of Justice website. No information about invalidation. See [11], [12].

First column of summary table

I'm thinking it would be helpful if the visual symbol first column of the summary table gave a bit more information. Consider (for example) India, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. In India, same-sex activity is de jure illegal, but it's not enforced. In Algeria, the law is enforced, and you could go to prison. And in Saudi Arabia, you could be executed. That's a drastic difference! Yet all three get a red X. I realize you can learn this by reading the text, but I still think there should be a more prominent indication. For example, maybe India could get a yellow symbol of some sort? It's illegal, and that's a problem, but you are not going to prison for it. And Saudi Arabia would get something else -- not sure what -- as the risk there is on a whole different level.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015 (United States - Same-sex marriage)

Please change the 'same-sex marriage' rights of 'United States' to 'Legal since 2015' because the Supreme Court has ruled that all states must allow same-sex marriage.

Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages Schoeneus (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done see this edit by Atakuzier (talk · contribs) at 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC). Thanks for the request though. Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)